OF 


Mr.  J.  S.  JOHNSTON,  of  Lou. 


ON  THE  BILL  TO  REGULATE 


THE  COMMERCIAL  INTERCOURSE 


BETWEEN 


THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  THE  BRITISH  COLONIES: 


DELIVERED  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 

FEBRUARY  23,  1827. 


WASHINGTON  : 

PRINTED  BY  GALES  & SEATON. 


1827. 


337 

v 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/speechofmrjsjohn00john_0 


SPEECH 


OP 


MR.  JOSIAH  S.  JOHNSTON, 


ON  THE  BILL 


TO  REGULATE  THIS  COMMERCIAL  INTERCOURSE 


BETWEEN  THE 


UNITED  STATES  AND  THE  BRITISH  COLONIES. 


Mr.  JOHNSTON  said  the  bill  under  discussion,  reported 
by  the  Committee  of  Commerce,  proposes  to  interdict  the  in- 
tercourse between  this  country  and  the  British  ports  in  her 
North  American  possessions,  and  West  India  and  other  Colo- 
nies, after  the  30th  September  next,  provided  Great  Britain 
shall  refuse  to  open  those  ports  upon  the  terms  therein  offered. 
The  amendment  proposes  to  strike  out  the  interdiction,  and 
leave  the  terms  for  their  acceptance ; but  without  any  indica- 
tion of  the  policy  or  principles  which  will  govern  the  future 
conduct  of  this  Government. 

The  question  then  submitted  to  the  Senate  is,  Whether,  under 
the  existing  state  of  things,  we  shall  impose  the  interdict  upon 
British  vessels  arriving  from  the  Colonies,  corresponding  with 
their  interdict  upon  American  vessels  ? 

Mr.  J.  said,  he  found  his  labors  and  responsibility  greatly 
increased  by  the  course  pursued  by  the  gentleman  from  Mary- 
land. 

He  had  distinctly  understood  from  him,  that  he  approved 
the  bill,  and  would  support  it ; that  he  should  have  the  sanction 
of  his  opinion  and  his  aid  in  debate.  You  may  judge  my  sur- 
prise, when  I saw  that  gentleman  rise  to  strike  out  the  inter- 
dict from  the  bill,  within  a few  minutes  after  conversing  with 
him  ; and  my  astonishment  is  not  diminished,  by  the  extraor- 
dinary course  of  attack  upon  the  bill,  the  report,  and  the  ad- 
ministration, in  a long,  studied,  and  premeditated  speech. 

The  gentleman  seems  to  have  undergone  a very  sudden  and 
entire  revolution  ; every  thing  is  changed.  The  bill  which  he 
approved,  has  become  very  menacing  in  its  character,  and  will 
be  very  offensive  in  its  operation.  The  report  is  characterized 


4 


as  a sort  of  declaration  of  war.  Now,  after  reading  both,  he 
had  said,  he  should  support  the  bill,  and  he  even  said  he  had 
seen  the  President,  and  that  he  found  that  he  understood  the 
subject  right.  I was  very  happy  to  find  myself  sustained  by 
the  high  authority  which  he  referred  to  ; but  I did  not  antici- 
tate  that  that  interview  with  the  Executive  would  end  at  last 
in  an  open  accusation  of  ignorance  and  negligence  of  the  rights 
and  interests  of  the  country. 

The  report  is  now  pronounced  very  provoking,  and  will  be 
considered  in  England  as  the  act  of  the  Government.  Mr.  J. 
said  he  believed  these  things  are  well  understood  in  England. 
They  would  know  that  this  was  merely  the  expose  of  a Com- 
mittee, and  that  it  derives  all  its  authority  from  the  truth  of  the 
facts,  and  the  force  of  the  arguments.  It  was  the  object  of  the 
report,  to  be  temperate  in  its  language,  conciliatory  in  its  man- 
ner, moderate  in  its  terms,  liberal  in  its  views- — but  firm  and 
fixed  in  its  purpose.  The  Committee  had  no  morbid  delicacy. 
They  stated  in  clear  terms  and  perhaps  strong  language,  the 
rights  of  the  country,  and  the  pretensions  of  Great  B ritain.  But 
they  knewr  the  difference  between  rude  and  offensive  epithets, 
and  the  manly  expression  of  the  national  feeling,  with  the  force 
and  the  dignity  which  the  occasion  required. 

The  gentleman  has  said,  that  the  report  and  bill  ought  to 
have  been  submitted  to  the  Executive.  To  what  can  such  doc- 
trines lead,  but  to  render  this  Government  a machine  to  be  mov- 
ed up  and  let  down  by  a spring,  to  be  touched  by  the  finger  of 
one  man  ? 

There  is  nowr  an  existing  law,  which  imposes  on  the  Presi- 
dent the  obligation  of  declaring  that  the  Colonial  ports  are  closed 
to  our  vessels,  and,  on  the  annunciation  of  that  fact,  the  laws  of 
1818  and  1820  revive  by  the  force  of  law.  The  President, 
anxious  to  do  what  the  public  interest  and  the  public  will  re- 
quire, has  submitted  the  subject  to  Congress,  to  ascertain  if  it 
is  their  disposition  to  change  the  existing  state  of  the  law  ; and 
now  it  is  thought  we  should  go  back  to  inquire  of  him  what 
ought  to  be  done.  What  aid  can  be  derived  from  our  local 
knowledge,  our  opinions,  or  our  advice  ? Of  w hat  use  is  a le- 
gislative body,  if  we  shrink  from  our  duty  to  avoid  the  responsi- 
bility, and  refer  every  thing  to  him.  The  pride  of  station,  and 
the  dignity  of  a Senator,  w ill  not  permit  me  to  take  my  opinions 
in  that  way,  or  to  commit  the  fortune  and  destiny  of  the  country 
to  any  man  ; and  if  we  did,  we  should  turn  round  hereafter 
upon  the  President,  as  the  gentleman  has  done  in  this  debate, 
and  accuse  him  of  being  the  author  of  our  laws,  and  hold  him  re- 
sponsible for  the  consequences.  He  now  denies  that  he  had  any 
knowledge  of  the  law  of  1823  ; that  the  bill  was  drawn  by  the 
then  Secretary  of  State,  passed  through  Congress  without  dis- 

r< 


5 


cussion.  Where  was  lie,  when  a subject  of  such  importance 
was  passed  ? and  when  did  he  find  out  that  that  law  was  so  in- 
judicious ? How  does  he  account  for  this  to  his  constituents  ? 

This  doctrine  must  resolve  this  Government  into  a single 
power. 

The  gentleman  from  Maryland  has  placed  his  amendment 
ypon  the  ground  that  this  country  has  been  wrong  in  this  mat- 
ter, and  that  some  act  of  conciliation  is  due  from  us.  It  will 
be  my  duty  to  vindicate  the  conduct  of  this  Government,  to 
justify  the  interdict,  and  to  remark  upon  the  conduct  of  the 
British  Government,  in  relation  to  the  time,  manner,  and  cir- 
«umstance,  of  their  interdict. 

It  has  been  a settled  maxim  in  our  policy,  since  the  founda- 
tion of  the  Government,  to  regulate  our  commercial  intercourse 
with  all  nations,  upon  terms  of  equality  and  reciprocity ; to 
meet  them  in  every  act  of  friendship  or  hostility  ; and  to  be 
governed  by  an  exact  scale  of  justice.  I beg  leave  to  refer  to 
some  of  these  principles.  I read  from  Mr.  Jefferson’s  com- 
mercial report  in  1793,  which  contains  the  great  system  of  re- 
ciprocity for  the  government  of  our  intercourse  with  foreign 
nations.  It  corresponds  with  the  principles  of  Mr.  Madison’s 
resolutions.  They  contain  the  true  republican  doctrines  of 
that  day,  and  on  which  our  commerce  and  navigation  have  been 
founded.  They  have  been  confirmed  by  time  and  practice,  and 
have  become  the  settled  policy  of  the  country,  and  from  which 
we  cannot  depart  without  an  abandonment  of  our  principles. 
They  will  be  found  a sure  guide  in  all  times. 

“But  should  any  nation,  contrary  to  our  wishes,  suppose 
it  may  better  find  its  advantage  by  continuing  its  system  of 
prohibitions,  duties,  and  regulations,  it  behooves  us  to  protect 
our  citizens,  their  commerce,  and  navigation,  by  counter  pro- 
hibitions, duties,  and  regulations,  also.  Free  commerce  and 
navigation  are  not  to  be  given  in  exchange  for  restrictions  and 
vexations  : nor  are  they  likely  to  produce  a relaxation  of  them.” 

“ Were  the  ocean,  which  is  the  common  property  of  all,  open 
to  the  industry  of  all,  so  that  every  person  and  vessel  should  be 
free  to  take  employment  wherever  it  could  be  found,  the  United 
States  would  certainly  not  set  the  example  of  appropriating  to 
themselves,  exclusively,  any  portion  of  the  common  stock  of 
occupation.  They  would  rely  on  the  enterprise  and  activity  of 
their  citizens,  for  a due  participation1" of  the  benefits  of  the  sea- 
faring business,  and  for  keeping  the  marine  class  of  citizens 
equal  to  their  object.  But,  if  particular  nations  grasp  at  undue 
shares,  and,  more  especially,  if  they  seize  on  the  means  of  the 
United  States , to  convert  them  into  aliment  for  their  own  strength , 
and  withdraw  them  entirehj  from  the  support  of  those  to  whom 
they  belong , defensive  and  protecting  measures  become  necessa- 


6 


ry  on  the  part  of  the  nation  whose  marine  resources  are  thus 
invaded.” 

44  Where  a nation  imposes  high  duties  on  our  productions, 
or  prohibits  them  altogether,  it  may  be  proper  for  us  to  do  the 
same  by  theirs.” 

“ Where  a nation  refuses  to  receive  in  our  vessels  any  pro- 
ductions but  our  own,  we  may  refuse  to  receive,  in  theirs,  any 
but  their  own  productions. 

44  Where  a nation  refuses  to  consider  any  vessel  as  ours  which 
has  not  been  built  within  our  territories,  we  should  refuse  to 
consider  as  theirs,  any  vessel  not  built  within  their  territories. 

44  Where  a nation  refuses  to  our  vessels  the  carriage  even  of 
our  own  productions,  to  certain  countries  under  their  domina- 
tion, we  might  refuse  to  theirs  of  every  description,  the  carriage 
of  the  same  productions  to  the  same  countries.” 

44  The  establishment  of  some  of  these  principles  by  Great 
Britain,  alone,  has  already  lost  us,  in  our  commerce  with  that 
country  and  its  possessions,  between  eight  and  nine  hundred 
vessels,  of  near  40,000  tons  burden,  according  to  statements 
from  official  materials,  in  which  they  have  confidence.  This  in- 
volves a proportional  loss  of  seamen,  shipwrights,  and  ship- 
building. and  is  too  serious  a loss  to  admit  forbearance  of  some 
effectual  remedy.” 

44  ft  is  not  to  the  moderation  and  justice  of  others  we  are  to 
trust  for  fair  and  equal  access  to  market  with  our  productions, 
or  for  our  due  share  in  the  transportation  of  them;  but  to  our 
own  means  of  independence,  and  the  firm  will  to  use  them.” 

I have  consulted  these  principles  in  the  present  case.  I have 
taken  them  for  my  guide.  I believe  it  the  imperious  duty  of 
those  who  direct  the  councils  of  this  nation  to  preserve  the 
rights,  the  char  acter,  and  the  dignity,  of  the  nation,  by  an  ad- 
herence to  known  and  approved  principles,  and  by  following 
out  to  their  results  the  maxims  and  truths  of  political  science, 
which  time  and  opinion  have  sanctioned.  1 beg  the  gentle- 
man from  Maryland  to  look  to  great  principles,  not  to  tem- 
porary expedients  : to  meet  Great  Britain  in  the  true  spirit 
of  the  nation  ; not  by  humiliating  his  country  before  her.  Let 
him  remember  that  submission  never  set  bounds  to  encroach- 
ment ; that  free  trade  is  not  to  be  given  for  restriction  and 
prohibition  ; and  acquiescence  will  not  obtain  a relaxation  of 
them.  He  will  remember  that  these  principles  were  violently 
opposed  in  their  day,  and  by  arguments  not  unlike  those  he  has 
employed  on  this  occasion. 

We  have  heretofore  acted  on  these  principles.  We  have 
met  her  exclusion  by  non-intercourse  : and  if  we  now  relax, 
if  we  fail  to  meet  the  crisis,  if  we  do  not  now  act  on  our 
known  principles — we  abandon  our  rights,  and  trust  to  favor 

* 


i 


and  conciliation  to  obtain  wliat  was  never  granted  to  modera- 
tion. You  will  sacrifice  the  principles  of  our  policy,  degrade 
the  country,  yield  up  the  trade,  and,  with  it  the  power  of 
controlling  and  coercing  it — in  the  vain  hope  of  operating  on 
British  magnanimity. 

Having  now  shown  the  principles  on  which  our  system  is 
founded,  let  us  pursue  the  subject  to  see  how  the  charge,  which 
the  gentleman  has  brought  upon  his  own  country,  is  sustained  ; 
and,  for  this  purpose,  I hope  I shall  be  pardoned  for  the  tedi- 
ousness of  this  dry  detail. 

Among  the  first  measures  adopted  by  this  Government  for 
the  protection  of  our  navigation,  was  a duty  of  one  dollar  a ton 
on  foreign  vessels,  and  10  per  cent,  additional  to  the  duties  on 
the  merchandise  imported  in  them.  Our  own  vessels  pay  a 
tonnage  duty  of  six  cents.  There  is,  therefore,  a discrimina- 
tion of  94  cents  a ton,  and  the  10  per  cent,  on  the  duties,  which 
foreign  vessels  pay  over  what  is  paid  by  American  vessels. 
But,  as  this  country  was  desirous  of  placing  her  commerce 
upon  the  most  perfect  equality  with  all  nations  who  would 
adopt  the  same  principle}  authority  was  given  to  the  President, 
by  an  act,  in  1815,  to  remove  this  discrimination  from  the  ves- 
sels of  all  Nations  who  would  remove  theirs  from  our  vessels  ; 
and,  accordingly,  the  vessels  of  all  nations  that  admit  ours  on 
the  same  terms  as  their  own,  are  admitted  in  our  ports  with 
the  same  charges  as  our  vessels.  In  the  Convention  of 
1815,  Great  Britain  accepted  these  terms,  so  far  as  regarded 
her  European  possessions  and  four  ports  in  the  East  Indies,  but 
was  unwilling  to  extend  them  to  the  West  Indies  and  the  North 
American  possessions,  and  other  places  mentioned  in  this  hill. 
In  regard  to  these  last,  the  right  was  reserved  to  each  party 
to  regulate  the  intercourse  according  to  their  own  views  of 
their  own  interest.  It  is  the  policy  of  Great  Britain,  although 
she  has  been  obliged  to  abandon  many  of  the  pretensions  which 
she  claimed,  and  on  which  her  navigation  system  was  founded, 
still  to  maintain,  not  only  the  right  to  carry  all  the  productions 
of  her  own  dominions,  but  to  enjoy  all  the  benefit  of  the  inter- 
course between  her  colonies  and  every  other  country,  as  if, 
in  the  present  state  of  the  world,  any  nation,  and  especially  a 
maritime  Nation,  could  permit  her  to  trade  with  them  upon 
such  principles ! And,  as  if  the  commerce  which  she  rightfully 
enjoys,  through  her  extensive  Colonial  possessions,  with  a fair 
participation  in  the  commerce  with  every  other  country,  was 
not  enough  to  satisfy  her  ambition,  she  claimed  the  right  to 
prohibit  our  intercourse  with  her  Colonies,  although  the  arti- 
cles which  constituted  the  commerce,  were  the  productions  of 
this  country,  and  of  indispensable  necessity  to  them.  The  injus- 
tice of  exercising  this  right,  exclusively,  and  refusing  any 


8 


share  to  the  people  by  whose  labor  the  commerce  was  created, 
was  sensibly  felt.  Thedr  ead  of  the  agricultural  interest  of 
any  change  which  might  endanger  the  loss  of  a market,  they 
then  enjoyed,  rendered  it  exceedingly  difficult  to  bring  the 
public  mind  to  the  point  of  resistance.  It  was  not  until 
1818,  that  a partial  restriction  was  obtained  ; but,  in  18£0,  we 
imposed  an  absolute  non-intercourse,  the  effect  of  which  was 
to  bring  to  the  consideration  of  Great  Britain  the  value  of  this 
trade  to  her,  by  making  her  feel  the  inconvenience  of  its  loss. 
We  then  found  we  had  the  same  right  to  say  who  should  trade 
with  our  ports,  as  she  had  to  say  who  should  not  trade  with 
hers.  It  was  soon  found  that  little  injury  was  experienced  in 
our  markets  ; that  our  productions  were  immediately  carried 
to  all  the  other  West  Indies  in  our  own  vessels,  and  a newr 
and  active  commerce  opened  to  our  citizens. 

Let  us  see,  then,  if,  up  to  the  period  of  1822,  when  Great 
Britain  opened  her  ports,  there  could  be  any  matter  of  com- 
plaint. For  three  years,  from  1815  to  1818,  she  enjoyed  ex- 
clusively the  trade.  From  that  time  to  1820,  her  interdict  re- 
mained, and  we  made  only  a partial  attempt  to  retaliate.  In 
that  year,  we  were  compelled  to  meet  her  by  prohibitory  re- 
gulations. In  the  state  of  non -intercourse  which  for  two  years 
succeeded,  there  is  nothing  but  an  effort  to  do  ourselves  justice, 
and  ta  place  our  country  upon  an  equality.  The  pretension  of 
intruding  into  our  ports,  while  our  vessels  are  excluded  from 
her  ports,  cannot  be  justified  on  any  ground,  nor  tolerated  on 
any  principle.  If  Great  Britain  has  a right  to  regulate  the 
trade  with  her  colonial  ports,  we  have  also  the  right  to  regu- 
late the  trade  in  our  own  productions.  It  is  sufficient  to  say, 
that  we  offered  her  the  utmost  freedom  of  commercial  inter- 
course, which  she  rejected,  and  met  only  by  an  absolute  refu- 
sal to  permit  our  vessels  to  enter  her  ports.  The  gentleman 
from  Maryland  (Mr.  Smith)  justifies  her  on  the  ground  of 
right,  and  asserts  that  this  trade  is  a mere  boon — a favor 
“ which  his  Majesty  grants.5*  A boon  is  something  without 
equivalent;  and  I know,  said  Mr.  J.,  too  well,  the  principle 
which  governs  nations,  to  believe  that  Great  Britain  opens  her 
ports,  or  divides  her  commerce  with  any  nation,  as  a matter  of 
favor.  It  is  a matter  of  interest  or  necessity.  We  do  not  com- 
plain that  she  closes  her  Colonial  ports,  but  of  that  want  of  de- 
licacy and  reciprocity  which  permits  her  to  do,  in  ours,  what 
she  refuses  us  to  do  in  her  own. 

Up  to  this  period,  then,  it  seems  there  can  be  no  ground  of 
censure  against  the  American  Government. 

It  is  sufficient  for  me  to  remark,  without  attempting  to  ac- 
count for  the  motives  or  principles  which  governed  her,  that, 
rn  two  years,  she  opened  her  ports.  She  had  tried  the  experiment 


0 


how  far  agriculture  could  be  sacrificed  to  navigation;  and 
how  far  and  how  long  the  Colonies  could  endure  the  pressure. 
They  were  oppressed  by  debt,  and  scarcely  able  to  bear  up 
under  the  direct  competition  of  the  other  islands,  more  favora- 
bly situated.  Their  lands  inferior,  expenses  greater,  profits 
small  and  precarious,  property  sunk  in  value,  and  incapable 
of  sustaining  any  additional  weight. 

In  1822,  she  partially  opened  her  ports  to  us.  She  selected 
a few  articles  of  primary  necessity,  which  we  were  permitted 
to  carry  to  her.  She  selected  flour,  biscuit,  rice,  live  stock, 
and  lumber,  the  particular  articles  which  we  were  to  furnish 
her,  upon  which  to  impose  a duty  equal  to  20  per  cent,  on  the 
price  in  our  market  ; and  this  trade  was  limited  to  a direct 
trade.  In  consideration  of  this  restricted  trade,  our  ports 
were  opened  to  a direct  intercourse  with  her  Colonies,  for 
all  their  productions.  But,  although  she  was  careful  to  limit 
us  to  a direct  trade,  she  immediately  demanded  not  to  be  her- 
self limited  to  the  direct  trade.  Reciprocity  was  our  only  ob- 
ject. We  intended  to  yield  nothing,  but  to  meet  her  fairly  in 
every  concession  and  restriction  she  might  think  it  her  interest 
to  adopt.  The  claims  of  Great  Britain  were  not  so  much  in  the 
spirit  of  encroachment,  as  in  the  spirit  with  which  she  watches 
and  guards  her  interests,  and  the  sagacity  and  ardor  with  which 
she  pursues  them.  It  is  evident,  that,  having  reluctantly 
yielded  any  part  of  the  trade  with  her  Colonies,  she  was  not 
inattentive  to  the  terms  on  which  it  was  conceded.  She  look- 
ed, in  this  case,  with  that  jealous  vigilance  to  her  interests, 
which  has  ever  marked  her  course.  She  demanded,  also,  that 
the  existing  discriminating  duty  should  be  removed  from  their 
vessels,  although,  by  their  act,  no  discriminations  or  charges 
were  removed,  nor  any  evidence  furnished  that  none  existed  ; 
and  the  British  Minister  was  unwilling  to  give  assurances  ou 
the  subject.  But  the  President  not  having  power  to  repeal  an  ex- 
isting law,  unless  they  had  furnished  the  evidence  that  no  higher 
duties  or  charges  existed  in  the  colonial  ports,  on  American  ves- 
sels and  merchandise,  than  on  their  own,  a communication  was 
immediately  made  to  the  British  Minister,  which  Mr.  J.  said 
he  would  read,  in  order  to  shew  the  frankness  and  good  dispo- 
sition of  this  Government,  in  relation  to  this  subject.  [Here 
Mr.  J.  read  the  last  paragraph  of  Mr.  Adams’s  letter  of  11th 
November,  1822.]  It  must  not  be  forgotten  that,  during  all  the 
discussions  on  this  subject,  that  there  was  a constant  desire 
manifested  on  our  part  to  open  the  trade,  and  to  meet  them  on 
terms  of  reciprocity. 

This  subject  came  before  Congress,  and  the  act  of  1823  was 
passed  with  great  unanimity.  That  law  gave  the  President 
power  to  remove  the  discriminating  duty,  on  condition,  in  effect, 

2 


10 


that  no  higher  duties  were  imposed  on  our  articles,  than  those 
coming  from  any  other  place.  Here  the  ground  was  directly 
taken  by  the  American  Government,  “all  the  branches  con- 
curring,that  our  discriminating  duty  was  only  a fair  equi- 
valent for  the  limited  trade  which  she  gave  us,  in  a few  articles 
burthened  with  a heavy  duty.  Each  party  was  the  judge  of 
its  own  interests,  and  both,  perhaps,  equally  well  informed, 
and  equally  anxious  to  protect  them. 

It  is  acknowledged,  that  Great  Britain  had  the  right  to  open 
her  ports,  under  any  reservations  ; it  was  ours,  equally,  to 
judge  of  them,  and  to  prescribe  the  equivalent : whether  her 
terms  were  liberal,  or  ours  were  equal ; whether  both  were  too 
guar  ded,  are  matters  of  speculation.  They  were  the  delibe- 
rate acts  of  the  two  Governments.  Great  Britain  had  reserved 
the  right  to  close  her  ports,  and  our  law  was  passed  under  a 
direct  menace  that  the  right  would  be  exercised ; and  we  also 
reserved  to  ourselves,  the  right  to  close  our  ports,  when  she 
should  close  hers.  Not  having  closed  them,  she  virtually  ac- 
cepted the  provisions  of  our  law,  by  laying  a duty  equal  to  our 
discriminating  duty,  upon  American  vessels,  in  order  to  coun- 
tervail ours ; a measure,  which  was  adopted,  says  Mr.  Hus- 
kisson,  “ because  it  was  the  mildest,  and  because  a disposition 
was  manifested  to  negotiate.” 

The  vessels  of  both  nations  paid  the  same  discriminating 
duty.  They  paid  it  in  our  ports  : we  in  their’s.  All  our  ports 
were  open  to  their  productions,  paying  the  same  duties  as  the 
same  articles  from  any  foreign  country  : their’s  were  open  to 
us,  on  the  same  terms  : both  were  limited  to  the  direct  trade. 
The  mind  cannot  perceive  a greater  degree  of  equality,  in 
terms.  If  we  derived  an  undue  share  of  the  trade,  it  must  be 
owing  to  circumstances — vessels  better  adapted  to  the  trade, 
greater  economy,  a higher  degree  of  activity  and  enterprise  ex- 
cited by  competition,  local  position,  and  other  causes. 

But,  the  gentleman  from  Maryland,  although  he  is  now  laboring 
to  put  us  in  the  wrong,  said,  last  session,  that  this  state  of  things 
was  most  beneficial  to  Great  Britain.  Mr.  J.  read  from  his 
speech  of  last  session : “But  how  are  they  (the  ports)  open  ? 
Why,  by  our  paying  the  enormous  duty  of  94  cents  per  ton,  &c. 
on  our  vessels,  and,  I shall  not  be  surprized,  if  they  should  con- 
sent that  they  should  be  kept  open,  by  order  in  council,  forever, 
on  these  terms.  We  pay  to  their  revenue  g 1 90,  when  they  pay  to 
our’s  only  g 10  ; it  is  a simple  financial  operation.”  He  says, 
also,  (page  12,)  “The  retaliatory  duty  falls  so  heavily,  that  I 
am  surprised  they  (our  articles)  are  not  carried  in  British  ships 
alone.”  He  says,  (page  9)  the  act  of  Parliament  of  1822, 
“ opened  their  trade  upon  terms  more  liberal  than  heretofore, 
yet  reserving  many  advantages.5’ 

I do  not  rely,  said  Mr.  J.  upon  those  opinions  to  prove  that 


11 


the  terms  on  which  the  trade  was  opened,  were  equal ; but  it  is  a 
fair  argument  against  the  gentleman  himself : and,  if  the  terms 
seemed  so  favorable  to  him  last  year,  how  can  he  now  put  his  own 
Government  in  the  wrong  ? How  can  he  say  we  demanded  too 
much,  and  accuse  the  Administration  of  sacrificing  the  interests 
of  the  country  ? He  was  surprised,  last  year,  how  we  carried  a 
barrel  of  flour  under  the  heavy  discriminating  duty  imposed  on 
our  vessels.  His  object  then  seemed  to  be,  as  it  now  is,  to  put 
this  Government  in  the  wrong ; but  then  all  the  existing  regula- 
tions were  injurious,  not  to  Great  Britain,  but  to  ourselves  ; but 
now  it  is  necessary  to  shew  that  the  terms  on  which  we  opened 
the  trade  were  unequal  and  disadvantageous  to  Great  Britain,  in 
order  to  justify  the  interdict9  and  the  argument  is  changed.  Then 
the  gentleman  said,  the  “countervailing  duty  fell  on  our  agricul- 
turists,” threatened  our  navigation  with  the  loss  of  trade,  and 
was,  altogether,  most  unwise  legislation.  If  the  terms  were 
so  unfavorable  to  ourselves,  how  can  he  now  justify  the  inter- 
dict on  that  ground  ? I avail  myself  of  these  opinions,  (which  I 
shall  shew  to  be  erroneous  before  I sit  down, ) merely  to  answer 
him — “equal  and  opposing  forces  counteract  each  other.” 
Then  it  was  the  gentleman’s  object  to  laud  British  states- 
men. He  said  of  one  of  them,  (Mr.  Huskisson,  certainly  of 
very  liberal  principles  and  enlarged  views,)  “That  great 
man,  and  his  colleagues,  form  the  most  able,  the  most  wise, 
and  most  useful  administration,  that  has  ever  existed  in  Great 
Britain.  They  are  doing  great  good  to  commerce,  great  and 
useful  services  to  the  nation,  and  opening  the  eyes  of  the  world 
to  the  advantages  of  a free  trade”  Yes  ! Great  Britain  open - 
ing  the  eyes  of  the  world  to  the  advantages  of  a free  trade!/ 

Then, it  was  the  gentleman’s  object  to  exhibit  the  ruinous  policy 
of  this  country,  in  regulating  the  Colonial  trade;  now,  he  finds 
the  British  Government  justified  in  interdicting  the  trade  alto- 
gether, because  the  act  of  1 823  was  a most  unwise  measure, 
and  of  which  she  had  a right  to  complain. 

Up  to  this  period,  then,  both  nations  had  regulated  this  trade 
according  to  their  respective  views  of  their  own  interests  ; 
perhaps  their  regulations  were  somewhat  unequal  in  opera- 
tion ; but  they  were  as  nearly  equal  in  terms,  and  reciprocal 
in  privileges  and  charges,  as  they  could  be  made.  If 
there  was  any  inequality  in  their  operation,  it  must  be 
ascribed  to  causes  inherent  in  the  nature  of  things,  which 
the  legislature  cannot  control.  Laws  cannot  be  made  that 
will  divide  equally  the  navigation  and  commerce  of  two 
countries ; those  who,  by  skill,  industry,  and  economy,  can 
carry  for  less  price,  will  obtain  the  trade ; if  we  have  any  ad- 
vantage it  is  that.  Against  such  a law  of  nature  there  is  no 
way  to  legislate,  but  by  interdiction.  Suppose  Great  Britain 


12 


undertakes  to  protect  her  navigation  in  the  colonial  trade ; 
what  is  the  effect  ? Her  staple  is  sugar,  which  depends  on  a 
foreign  market,  where  it  meets  with  an  active  competition  with 
the  sugars  of  the  other  islands.  If  she  pays  a dollar  a barrel 
duty  on  flour,  and  a like  duty  on  every  other  article  of  consump- 
tion, for  the  benefit  of  Canada,  while  the  other  sugar  colonies 
do  not  pay  it,  and  we  can  carry  those  articles  to  them  free  of 
duty,  and  their  sugars  to  Europe  cheaper  than  the  British  are 
carried,  does  it  not  follow  that  the  British  sugars  will  be  more 
heavily  charged  ? and  that,  being  in  a glutted  market,  (and  all 
the  sugar  markets  are  glutted,)  they  must  sink  to  the  price  at 
which  the  cheaper  sugars  can  be  sold  ? This  will  fall  on  the 
islands ; they  will  be  sacrificed  to  the  primary  policy  of  navi- 
gation, and  to  the  like  necessity  of  protecting  Canada  against 
foreign  competition,  at  the  expense  of  the  other  Colonies. 

This  state  of  things  cannot  exist  in  the  present  intelligent 
and  active  condition  of  the  world.  We  had  no  rightto  ask  Great 
Britain  to  take  off  the  duty  on  flour  and  lumber,  which  operat- 
ed injuriously  to  our  agriculture;  and  we  did  not.  But  it  was 
a policy  which  we  thought  the  interests  of  the  West  India  Co- 
lonies required.  But  of  that  she  is  the  judge.  We  thought 
the  new  lights,  which  British  statesmen  have  since  thrown 
upon  free  trade,  would  have  made  this  error  visible. 

Mr.  Johnston  said  he  concluded  that,  up  to  that  time,  there 
was  no  error,  except  a common  error  of  restriction  on  both 
sides;  mutual  error,  arising  from  too  much  attention  to  the 
means  of  protection  by  law,  of  that  w hich  should  be  left  only  to 
the  fair  and  open  competition  of  skill  and  enterprise.  The  cord 
was  drawn  too  tight.  If  the  gentleman  from  Maryland  has  not 
made  good  his  charge,  let  us  pursue  the  subject,  and  see  how 
the  charge  of  neglect  is  sustained. 

In  1824,  the  two  Governments  had  a full  conference  in  Lon- 
don on  the  Colonial  relations.  The  British  Government  refused 
to  yield  either  the  duty  on  our  productions,  or  to  treat  of  the  St. 
Lawrence  question  in  this  negotiation,  with  which  it  was  most 
naturally  connected,  but  most  pertinaciously  adhered  to  the 
exercise  of  her  rights  on  both,  while  she  insisted  on  the  repeal 
of  the  discriminating  duty.  The  propositions  were  mutually 
exchanged,  and  their’s  were  referred  to  this  country.  It  was 
still  the  same  question  ; and  nothing  had  occurred  to  induce  a 
change  of  opinion,  or  any  change  in  the  terms  on  which  the 
trade  was  then  established. 

The  occupations  of  the  Department,  during  the  necessary  en- 
gagements of  a short  session  of  Congress,  did  not  afford  time 
for  reflection  and  consultation,  even  if  it  had  been  proper  to 
decide  on  these  propositions  which  were  to  affect  the  legislative 
enactments  of  the  country,  pending  a change  of  Administration, 
which  took  place  in  March,  1825. 


13 


When  the  Secretary  of  State  came  into  office,  he  had  great 
labor  in  making  himself  acquainted  with  the  diplomatic  rela- 
tions, and  preparing  instructions  for  different  negotiations. 
With  Great  Britain  we  had  several  points  of  great  importance, 
on  all  of  which  instructions  were  to  be  furnished  to  our  Minis- 
ter, about  to  proceed  to  London.  The  documents  were  numer- 
ous, the  duty  highly  responsible,  and  the  greatest  care  and  at- 
tention necessary  to  present  our  rights  justly  and  fairly  before 
him.  They  embraced  the  slave  convention,  the  Northeastern 
boundary,  the  Northwestern  coast,  the  navigation  of  the  St. 
Lawrence,  the  colonial  question,  and  some  smaller  points.  In- 
structions were  furnished  on  some  of  these  subjects,  and  full 
powers  given  to  treat  of  all.  The  Minister  was  directed  to 
proceed  to  the  negotiation  of  the  slave  convention  first,  being 
of  most  pressing  urgency,  as  the  Commission  had  found  itself 
unable  to  proceed ; and  he  was  informed  that  instructions  would 
follow  for  the  adjustment  of  the  Colonial  question. 

And  here  the  gentleman  will  pardon  me  for  saying,  he 
has  been  wanting  in  candor  and  liberality.  He  knew  that, 
when  the  present  Secretary  came  into  office,  it  became  his  duty 
to  decide  on  the  British  proposition  of  1824,  and  to  frame  his 
instructions  accordingly.  It  was  desirable  to  both  countries 
that  the  question  should  be  put  at  rest,  but  it  was  important  to 
maintain  the  just  rights  of  the  nation  ; and,  unwilling  to  act  on 
his  own  judgment  alone,  or  to  compromit  the  public  interest, 
he  addressed  a circular  letter  to  the  most  distinguished  com- 
mercial men,  and  among  them  to  the  gentleman  himself ; and  1 
ask  him  if  he  does  not  know  that  the  delay  in  drawing  the  in- 
structions on  this  subject,  arose  from  the  desire  of  obtaining 
this  information  ? and  from  the  desire,  too,  of  being  able  to 
meet  the  views  of  the  British  Government?  and  from  the  im- 
portant interests  which  his  decision  involved  ? I could  appeal 
to  the  gentleman  late  a member  from  Massachusetts,  (Mr. 
Lloyd,)  to  the  gentleman  from  Maine,  (Mr.  Holmes,)  and 
several  others  of  both  Houses,  both  for  the  interest  and  zeal 
manifested  on  this  subject,  and  for  the  opinions  then  enter- 
tained by  him. 

The  first  letters  from  Mr.  King,  announced  his  own  ill 
health,  and  the  regret  of  Mr.  Canning,  that  his  indisposition 
rendered  it  necessary  to  leave  town-  It  was  not  until  the  26th 
September,  1825,  that  Mr.  King  had  his  first  meeting  with 
the  Minister,  and  not  until  the  11th  of  November  his  presen- 
tation to  the  King. 

But,  on  the  26th  of  September,  the  new  acts  of  Parliament 
arrived  here.  No  notice  was  given  to  this  Government  of  the  in- 
tended operation  of  the  laws.  It  was  not  known  whether  they 
superseded  the  laws  then  in  force,  as  regards  the  United 


14 


States,  or  were  expected  to  do  away  the  necessity  of  ne- 
gotiation. This  Government  was  left  entirely  in  the  dark, 
as  to  the  views  or  wishes  of  the  British  Government.  The 
laws  themselves  did  not  furnish  a very  satisfactory  ex 
pianation  on  these  points.  The  gentleman  from  Maryland 
says  they  are  quite  clear.  They  may  be  to  him,  but  I can  say 
they  have  cost  me  some  labor  to  unr  avel  them.  There  were 
three  acts,  embracing  130  sections.  I read,  attentively,  the 
several  laws,  but  I searched  in  vain  for  any  repeal  of  the  act 
of  1822,  which  regulated  the  trade  with  this  country.  It  has 
been  said,  that  it  is  repealed  ; but  I venture  to  appeal  to  the 
gentleman  from  Maryland,  and  to  ask  him  if  he  has  yet  found 
out  how  it  is  repealed  ? The  learned  Sir  W.  Scott,  has  given 
a decision  in  the  case  of  the  Jubilee,  in  conformity  with  an  act 
no  longer  in  force,  and  neither  the  learned  Judge,  nor  his 
Counsel  on  the  spot,  having  known  it  was  repealed,  |or 
thought  of  searching  for  it  in  an  act,  which,  it  is  now  said, 
also  repeals  the  act  of  1822,  entitled  “ an  act  to  repeal  the 
several  laws  of  the  customs.” 

In  the  act  of  the  27th  June,  1825,  I found  that  certain  goods 
might  be  imported  in  the  colonies  from  America,  Europe,  Asia, 
or  Africa;  but  we  had  this  right  already  by  the  law  of  1822. 
But  the  right  of  Exportation  was  confined  to  Europe , Asia , and 
Africa , and  in  the  vessels  of  the  country  to  which  the  exporta- 
tion was  made.  I could,  therefore,  find  nothing  in  this  act  re- 
lating to  us  ; I was,  therefore,  convinced  the  act  was  not  in- 
tended to  operate  on  us,  or,  in  any  way,  to  change  the  existing 
relations. 

In  the  act  of  5th  July,  1825,  “to  regulate  the  trade  of 
British  possessions  abroad,”  I found  nothing  relating  to  Amer- 
ica except  the  4th  section,  wrhich  says,  “ and  whereas,  by  the 
law  of  navigation,  foreign  ships  are  permitted  to  import  into 
any  of  the  British  possessions  abroad  from  the  countries  to 
which  they  belong,  &c.  and  to  export  goods  from  such  posses- 
sions to  be  carried  to  any  foreign  country  whatever  .”  This 
reference  to  the  law  of  navigation  is  neither  by  title  nor  date. 
The  law  enacted  eight  days  preceding,  did  not  include  Ameri- 
ca, in  the  right  to  export  to  any  foreign  country,  and  I was 
ignorant  to  what  law  of  navigation  it  had  reference,  unless  to 
that  last  recited  act.  I had  found  nothing  to  satisfy  me  that 
the  privileges  of  the  act  extended  to  this  country. 

In  an  act  of  the  same  day,  “ for  the  encouragement  of  Bri- 
tish shipping  and  navigation,”  I was  surprised  to  find  that  an 
act  of  that  session,  to  repeal  law  s relating  to  the  customs,  had 
repealed  the  laws  of  navigation,  and  that,  by  that  operation, 
all  trade  must  be  free  that  was  not  therein  prohibited,  as  it 
had  beenpreviously  prohibited , unless  relaxed  by  special  law  ? 


I could  not  find  the  trade  with  the  United  States  prohibited, 
and  therefore  inferred,  that  that  act  was  the  one  alluded  to, 
by  which  the  right  to  export  to  foreign  countries  was  granted 
to  the  United  States, 

In  the  absence  of  all  information  on  the  subject,  some  doubts 
were  entertained  of  the  construction  of  these  laws.  A letter 
was  addressed  to  Mr.  Vaughan,  to  inquire  if  American  ves- 
sels were  permitted,  under  that  law,  to  export  from  the  Colo- 
nies to  any  foreign  country,  and  if  the  discriminating  duty  was 
repealed  ; to  which  he  could  give  no  satisfactory  answer,  hav- 
ing received  no  advice  or  instructions  on  the  subject.  Nor  was 
it  understood,  whether,  if  we  did  not  avail  ourselves  of  the 
right  to  export  to  any  foreign  country  granted  in  this  bill, 
by  placing  them  on  the  footing  of  the  most  favored  nation, 
that  the  law  would  go  into  operation,  and  exclude  us  from  the 
direct  trade  in  which  we  were  then  engaged.  There  was  a 
power  left  in  the  King  and  Council  to  extend  those  privileges 
to  Nations  who  might  not  comply  with  the  provisions  of  this 
law,  which  it  was  reasonable  to  believe  were  intended  to  apply 
to  our  case.  Besides,  this  law,  if  put  in  operation,  would 
close  the  ports  of  the  North  American  possessions,  which  it  is 
her  interest,  and  has  always  been  her  policy,  to  keep  open. 
But  we  now  know,  that  these  laws  did  not  go  into  operation 
against  us,  except  in  one  instance,  which  was  revoked. 

But,  to  the  gentleman  from  Maryland,  there  was  no  difficul- 
ty in  the  laws  ; to  him  every  thing  was  clear.  The  gentleman 
enjoyed  the  peculiar  advantage,  of  which  he  has  made  so  much 
in  his  speech,  of  not  being  a lawyer.  His  mind  is  not  tram- 
melled by  professional  learning.  He  marches  boldly  up  to  the 
question,  assumes  his  premises,  and  jumps  to  his  conclusions. 
The  labor  of  research,  and  the  patience  of  investigation,  are 
equally  unnecessary  and  unknown  to  him. 

Besides  these  considerations,  said  Mr.  J.  the  extent  of  the 
privileges  claimed  under  the  act  of  Parliament  for  placing 
them  “ on  the  footing  of  the  most  favored  Nation,”  was  not 
distinctly  understood.  If,  by  it,  they  expected  to  be  placed  on 
the  footing  of  Guatemala  and  Denmark,  who  have  a perfectly 
free  trade,  it  could  not  be  conceded  to  Great  Britain,  unless 
she  made  the  same  concession.  The  mere  right,  and  the  very 
doubtful  right  as  to  its  effect,  of  carrying  from  the  Colonies  to 
Europe,  could  not  be  considered  equivalent  to  the  concession. 
Understood  in  the  limited  sense,  there  could  be  no  objection, 
and  there  was  none  here  to  meet  Great  Britain  on  the  terms 
proposed.  The  import  of  those  words  is  distinctly  known 
here,  and  it  is  presumed  is  so  in  England.  But  it  was  desi- 
rable to  be  explicit,  and  not  to  be  involved  in  the  interpreta- 
tion of  words.  We  have  already  had  a tedious  correspon- 


16 


dence  with  one  foreign  nation  ; and,  under  the  pretensions 
arising  out  of  the  construction  of  these  expressions,  our 
citizens  find  themselves  deprived  of  an  immense  amount ; 
their  property  seized  upon  the  Ocean  under  the  most  il- 
legal decrees,  either  burnt,  confiscated,  or  condemned,  with- 
out judicial  formality,  and  paid  over  to  the  French  Treasury. 
And,  when  they  demand  indemnity  for  these  robberies,  which  eve- 
ry nation  has  received,  they  are  for  years  deferred  under  different 
pretences,  and  at  last,  this  unfounded  claim  against  the  Amer- 
ican Government  is  set  up  to  defeat  the  just  claims  of  our  citi- 
zens. This  lesson,  which  will  be  long  and  painfully  remem- 
bered in  this  country,  is  sufficient  to  guard  us  against  the  dan- 
ger of  these  expressions. 

The  Executive  of  the  United  States  determined  to  accept 
the  terms  of  the  British  Government,  and  it  was  believed  here 
that  no  further  difficulty  could  occur  ; and  the  President  says 
in  his  message,  “ in  the  renewal  of  the  diplomatic  missions  on 
both  sides,  between  the  two  Governments,  assurances  have 
been  given  and  received,  of  the  continuance  and  increase  of 
mutual  confidence  and  cordiality,  by  which  the  adjustment  of 
many  points  of  difference  has  already  been  effected,  and  which 
affords  the  surest  pledge  for  the  ultimate  satisfactory  adjust- 
ment of  those  which  will  remain  open,  or  may  hereafter  arise.” 

The  indisposition  of  Mr.  King  continued  from  his  arrival  un- 
til all  expectation  of  his  recovery,  so  as  to  be  able  to  conduct 
the  negotiation,  was  abandoned.  This  was  so  apparent,  that 
the  British  Minister  kindly  invited  us  to  send  an  adjunct  Min- 
ister, to  enable  them  to  proceed  with  the  Ministers  then  ap- 
pointed, and  preparing  to  treat  on  their  part,  on  the  important 
subjects  then  pending  between  the  two  Governments. 

Mr.  Gallatin  was  immediately  designated,  as  a man  most 
competent  for  this  duty.  He  was  consulted,  and  consented  to 
engage  in  it.  He  was  appointed,  with  full  powers,  furnished 
with  instructions,  and  the  British  Government  was  notified 
that  the  instructions  would  arrive  by  the  last  of  May,  only 
two  months  from  the  date  of  the  invitation.  The  British 
Government  had  seen  that  the  causes  of  delay,  during  the  last 
year,  were  beyond  human  control,  and  were  as  unforeseen  as 
unavoidable.  If  Mr.  King  had  been  furnished  with  instruct 
tions,  he  could  not  have  proceeded  ; and  if  he  could,  he  would 
have  been  so  furnished  in  good  time.  If  he  had  been  instruct- 
ed, they  would  not  have  been  applicable  to  the  new  state  of 
things,  growing  out  of  the  acts  of  Parliament,  passed  about  the 
time  of  his  arrival ; and,  if  the  Minister  had  been  able  to  pro- 
ceed to  the  negotiation,  it  was  late  in  the  Fall  before  their  Mi- 
nisters assembled  for  that  purpose. 

At  the  last  session,  a memorial,  praying  the  removal  of  the 


17 


discriminating  duty,  was  referred  to  the  Committee  of  Com- 
merce ; who  made  a report  declining  legislation,  because 
it  was  a proper  subject  for  negotiation.  A bill  for  that  pur- 
pose was,  however,  introduced,  but  not  acted  on,  for  want 
of  time  ; and,  upon  this,  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  show  that 
the  Administration  had  prevented  the  passage  of  the  bill,  and 
various  private  conversations  have  been  reported  here  to 
strengthen  the  impression.  But  the  charge  is  as  groundless 
as  the  other  attempts  to  put  this  Government  in  the  wrong. 

When  the  gentleman  from  Maryland  applied  to  the  Presi- 
dent and  the  Secretary  of  State,  they  both  said  it  might  be  re- 
pealed ; they  made  no  objection  ; they  did  not  dissuade  him  ; 
they  both  told  him  there  was  no  longer  any  difficulty  in  the 
adjustment  of  this  affair  with  Great  Britain ; that  the  nego- 
tiations were  about  to  be  resumed.  It  was  a mere  question, 
whether  it  was  better  to  give  them  this  in  advance,  or  to  hold 
it  in  our  hands  until  the  negotiation.  But  they  left  him  en- 
tirely at  liberty ; and  he  so  stated  it  in  his  speech,  last  year. 
He  said,  “ there  was  no  difference  on  this  subject,  except  as  to 
the  manner . The  Committee  of  Commerce  think  it  better  to 
be  done  by  negotiation.”  And  he  now  says  lie  took  his  mea- 
sures with  the  approbation  of  the  President,  and  the  concur- 
rence of  the  Secretary  of  State. 

The  Chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Commerce  also  applied 
to  the  President  and  Secretary  of  State.  They  told  him  the 
discriminating  duty  might  be  repealed  ; but  that,  alone,  would 
not  meet  the  terms  of  the  British  act  of  Parliament,  and  would 
not  supersede  negotiation.  They  thought  that  a subject  about 
which  we  had  been  for  ten  years  legislating,  ought  to  be  final- 
ly closed  by  a treaty,  which  would  embrace  all  the  points,  with 
regard  to  the  extent  of  the  trade,  the  duties  and  charges  ; and 
that  the  commercial  rights  of  the  nation  ought  to  be  fixed  per- 
manently, and  not  left  to  changing  legislation.  Besides  which, 
the  free  navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence,  which  was  not  pro- 
vided for,  was  an  object  equally  interesting,  and  ought  to  be 
connected  with  it.  The  repeal  of  the  duty  was  not  considered 
an  object  of  any  great  moment. 

Mr.  Johjvstont  said,  he  had  examined,  with  the  greatest  can- 
dor, all  the  transactions  of  1824  and  1825,  without  being  able 
to  find  any  want  of  respect  to  Great  Britain,  any  inattention  to 
her  rights  or  interests,  or  any  neglect  or  indifference  to  our 
own  ; nothing  by  which  the  argument  that  has  been  resorted 
to,  can  be  justified. 

It  must  not  he  forgotten,  that,  during  all  these  discussions, 
Great  Britain  has  refused  us  the  free  right  to  navigate  the  St. 
Lawrence  to  the  Ocean,  while  she  is  permitted  to  pass,  with 
her  merchandise,  to  Upper  Canada,  through  our  jurisdiction, 

3 


18 


over  the  same  waters.  The  effect  of  which  is  to  place  all  the 
productions  of  the  country  bordering  on  the  Lakes,  under  a 
charge  very  burthensome  and  oppressive,  and  almost  prohibi- 
tory. The  operation  of  this  duty  on  flour,  was  very  onerous 
on  that  part  of  our  country  especially.  This  Government  at- 
tempted to  connect  the  right  of  navigating  that  river,  with  the 
colonial  question  ; but  which  the  British  Government  contin- 
ually refused.  The  discriminating  duty  was  resorted  to,  in 
the  first  instance,  because  it  was  peculiarly  necessary  to  take 
a stand  in  favor  of  the  agricultural  interests  of  these  people. 
The  American  productions  on  the  St.  Lawrence  and  the  Lakes, 
have  not  only  the  long  voyage,  and  all  the  additional  expense  of 
freight  and  insurance,  but  they  paid  105  cents  a barrel  duty, 
which  brought  those  articles  into  market  upon  very  unequal 
terms ; and  it  was  especially  due  to  those  people  to  remove,  if 
possible,  the  duty  on  them.  Mr.  J.  said,  he  would  not  here 
discuss  the  right  of  passing  from  the  great  inland  seas, 
which  belong  equally  to  both  nations,  to  the  Ocean,  the  com- 
mon property  of  all,  through  a Straight  which  connects  them, 
and,  especially  as  that  Straight  passes,  at  some  points, 
through  the  territorial  limits  of  the  United  States.  If  Great 
Britain  shall  be  deaf  to  the  great  right  of  this  passage  under 
the  laws  of  Nations,  we  shall  be  obliged  to  exercise  the 
same  power  over  her  right  of  passage  through  the  same  waters 
within  our  territorial  limits,  and  to  divert  our  trade  into  an  op- 
posite direction.  But  all  those  restrictions  are  equally  inju- 
rious, and  oppressive,  and  vexatious,  to  all  parties. 

But  the  interest  which  this  Government  has  manifested 
in  the  right  of  navigating  the  St.  Law  rence,  a right  hereto- 
fore so  valued  by  our  people  in  that  quarter,  so  essential 
to  their  happiness,  is  treated  by  the  gentleman  of  Maryland  in 
a very  sneering  and  cavalier  manner.  He  says  it  was  a “ laugh- 
able attempt,”  and  that  “ he  could  have  seen  through  the  flimsy 
veil.”  The  right  of  navigating  the  St.  Lawrence  to  the  Ocean 
is  not  a new  subject.  It  has  been  claimed  for  several  years, 
and  frequent  attempts  have  been  made  to  secure  it.  It  is  a right 
founded  in  public  law,  gravely  and  zealously  urged,  and  is 
still  in  discussion  with  the  British  Government.  Whatever  es- 
timate he  may  form  of  it,  or  to  whatever  unworthy  motives  he 
may  attribute  the  negotiation  on  the  subject,  if  the  gentleman 
had  read  the  memorial  from  St.  Lawrence,  he  would  have  seen 
the  value  of  this  privilege,  and  attribute  the  conduct  of  the  Go- 
vernment to  a proper  sense  of  the  rights  and  interests  of  those 
wrhom  it  concerns. 

Mr.  Johnston  said,  his  duty  obliged  him  to  follow  the  re- 
marks of  the  gentleman  from  Maryland,  however  tedious  the 
details,  or  desultory  the  discussion  might  appear.  To  those 


19 


who  understand  the  subject,  it  will  be  uninteresting ; to  those 
who  do  not,  it  will  he  fatiguing,  if  not  disgusting.  My  only 
resource  is,  to  make  my  remarks  as  brief  as  is  consistent  with 
clearness.  The  gentleman  says,  “ Mr.  King  having  arrived  in 
England,  without  being  charged  particularly  on  that  point, 
(the  British  proposition,)  the  British  Parliament  passed  their 
acts  of  the  27th  of  June,  and  two  acts  of  the  5th  July,  1825. 99 
He  leaves  the  inference  to  be  drawn,  if  the  fact  is  not  clearly 
expressed,  that  these  acts  of  Parliament  were  passed  in  conse- 
quence of  his  not  having  instructions.  Now,  what  is  the  fact  ? 
The  British  Government  gave  us  their  propositions,  which 
were  referred  to  this  Government  late  in  1824.  A busy  and 
eventful  Winter  succeeded;  and,  as  soon  as  the  new  Administra- 
tion was  organized,  a minister  was  despatched,  who  arrived 
the  very  day  the  first  act  passed.  They  did  not  wait  for  our 
answer,  but  created  a new  state  of  things,  that  would,  in  all 
probability,  have  superseded  the  instructions,  if  any  had  been 
given.  But,  when  these  laws  passed,  they  could  not  have 
known  any  thing  with  regard  to  his  instructions.  It  w'as  three 
months,  during  which  the  minister  was  sick,  before  lie  had  an 
interview  with  Mr.  Canning:  and  more  than  four  months  be- 
fore his  presentation,  prior  to  which,  the  negotiations  could 
not  be  resumed.  It  is,  therefore,  altogether  gratuitous  to 
say,  the  laws  passed  in  consequence  of  the  want  of  instructions. 
They  are  general  laws,  relating  to  the  trade  of  the  Colonies 
with  all  nations. 

And  here  permit  me  to  remark  upon  the  extraordinary  dis- 
closure of  the  gentleman,  with  regard  to  these  laws.  He  has 
stated  that,  at  the  last  session,  having  learned  from  the  Secre- 
tary of  State,  that  the  British  Acts  of  Parliament  were 
in  his  office,  he  went  to  see  the  President,  and  found  that 
he  had  not  seen  them.  The  impression  made  on  the  minds  of 
those  who  heard  him,  was,  that  he  intended  to  fix  on  the  Secre- 
tary of  State  and  the  Executive  a gross  and  culpable  neglect  of 
their  duty  ; that  the  subject  had  excited  no  interest ; that  the 
President  was  ignorant  of  the  existence  of  these  laws  ; and  that 
he  had  awakened  the  Government  to  the  consideration  of  the 
subject.  These  laws  had  then  been  in  the  possession  of  the 
Government  three  months.  1 would  appeal  to  the  candor  of  the 
gentleman  himself ; I would  appeal  to  his  knowledge  of  the 
fact,  that  the  paper  cases  containing  the  foreign  correspondence, 
are  regularly  carried  to  the  President  ; to  the  great  interest 
he  has  always  manifested  in  this  subject;  to  the  indefatiga- 
ble labor  with  which  he  devotes  himself  to  all  the  duties  of  his 
station  ; and  I would  ask  him  if  he  believes  the  President  of 
the  United  States  had  no  knowledge  of  those  laws  ? 


20 


The  gentleman  has  drawn  a very  uncandid  argument  from  the 
erm  ports.  He  cannot  be  ignorant  that  those  ports  allude  espe- 
cially to  the  enumerated  ports,  and  to  no  others . To  those  ports, 
which,  in  consequence  of  having  Custom-houses,  and  being 
ports  of  entry,  admit  vessels  of  other  nations.  It  seems  equally 
difficult  to  misconceive  the  meaning  of  the  Committee  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  when  they  say  we  cannot  be  sa- 
tisfied w ith  a “ few  free  ports,  or  places  of  depot. ” 

Great  Britain  has  opened  this  trade  to  the  rest  of  the  w orld, 
wTe  cannot  accept  of  less  ; w e expect  the  trade  with  the  usual 
places  in  her  Colonies,  in  consideration  of  their  trade  with  ours. 
We  shall  not  be  satisfied  to  have  a free  port  at  Halifax, 
and  at  Bermuda,  as  places  of  depot.  We  cannot  accept  of  Jess 
than  all  the  enumerated  ports  in  the  West  Indies.  If  Great 
Britain  should  open  the  port  of  Halifax  only,  all  the  American 
productions  for  the  West  i ndies,  would  concentrate  there,  from 
which  port  they  w ould  be  transported  in  British  vessels.  W'e 
cannot,  therefore,  admit,  in  practice,  a principle  which  would 
exclude  our  shipping  from  a due  share  of  the  trade  in  our  own 
productions.  This  w7ould  be  to  permit  ourselves  to  be  circum- 
vented by  that  “ insidious  policy”  to  w hich  the  gentleman  allud- 
ed last  session,  and  of  the  effect  of  which  now,  he  seems  to  be 
entirely  unconscious. 

The  gentleman  from  Maryland  has  made  a great  lamenta- 
tion on  the  ruinous  operation  of  the  discriminating  duty  levied 
on  American  vessels  in  the  British  ports.  This  duty  amounts 
to  15}  cents,  estimated  by  the  barrel;  while  the  duty  on  im- 
portation amounts  to  105  cents  a barrel.  The  American  Go- 
vernment made  a firm  stand  against  this  latter  onerous  impo- 
sition, injurious  alike  to  our  agriculture  and  navigation.  But 
the  gentleman  has  stigmatized  the  efforts  of  the  Administration 
to  remove  this  tax  upon  our  productions;  while  an  exaction 
of  one-sixth  in  amount,  is  magnified  into  a most  ruinous  effect 
upon  the  navigation.  At  the  last  session  he  said,  page  7,  “ But 
how  are  the  ports  open  ? Why,  by  our  paying  the  enormous  duty 
of  94  cents  per  ton,  &c.  upon  our  vessels,  and  I shall  not  be 
much  surprised  if  they  should  consent  to  be  kept  open  forever 
on  those  terms.”  The  duty  of  105  cents  a barrel  on  flour  is 
nothing  ; but  this  enormous  duty  of  15}  cents  a barrel  (being 
levied  as  tonnage)  is  calculated  to  produce  the  most  important 
effects  upon  our  trade.  In  the  same  speech  he  says,  page  1 1, 
ii  If  then  we  w ere  relieved  from  the  alien  duties  of  impost  and 
tonnage,  there  can  be  little  doubt  our  flour  would  go  direct,  and 
that  two-thirds  at  least,  perhaps  three-fourths  w ould  be  carried 
in  American  vessels  : even  under  all  these  disadvantages  it  is 
certain  that  more  than  ten  barrels  of  flour  are  exported  to  the 
colonies  in  American  vessels,  for  one  in  British.”  But  the  gen- 


31 


tleman  has  complained  of  this  also:  he  says  “that  we  pay  four- 
tilths  of  this  duty;”  “ that  we  pay  % 190,  while  they  only  pay 
ten  ; it  is  a mere  financial  calculation.”  He  deprecates  this 
ruinous  state  of  things.  It  appears  that,  in  spite  of  this  enor- 
mous duty,  our  vessels  enjoyed  the  carrying  trade:  that 
they  carried  our  productions  to  British  markets,  while  British 
vessels,  free  from  this  duty,  could  not.  These  articles  there 
sell,  of  course,  for  enough  to  pay  cost,  freight,  and  charges; 
and,  if  British  vessels  did  not  pay  the  same  in  our  ports,  the  rea- 
son is  obvious. 

The  gentleman  has  gone  much  further,  and  said  “ the  act  of 
1822  was  every  thing  we  could  wish.”  It  was  limited  to  a di- 
rect trade  “ but  did  we  complain?”  We  paid  a heavy  duty  on 
flour,  equal  to  105  cents,  and  a similar  duty  on  all  other  articles, 
and  that  in  cash;  hut  that  was  all  right,  and  he  seems  to  exult 
in  the  triumph  over  the  Government,  in  having  failed  to  ac- 
complish the  removal  of  this  duty  on  our  flour,  live  stock,  and 
lumber — what  he  pronounces  “to  have  been  a very  silly  de- 
mand,” and  which  they  have  surrendered  as  “ untenable.” 
But,  as  it  regards  the  articles  prohibited,  he  says  it  is  a curi- 
ous coincidence,  that  we  prohibit  the  same  articles  hv  our  du- 
ties. This  is  too  palpable  for  serious  refutation.  lie  seems 
to  suppose  the  trade  perfectly  reciprocal,  because  the  same  ar- 
ticles are  prohibited.  The  articles  they  prohibit,  we  can  fur- 
nish : the  articles  he  supposes  prohibited  here,  they  cannot  fur- 
nish. This  is  reciprocity  in  name — not  in  substance.  But 
w7e  have  no  prohibitions,  and  articles  depending  on  a foreign 
market  cannot  be  protected  by  our  laws.  The  exportation  of 
flour,  beef,  pork,  tobacco,  cotton,  &c.  is  a proof  that  they  do 
not  require,  and  cannot  receive,  protection  from  our  laws.  No 
article  is  exported  until  the  home  market  is  supplied,  and 
when  in  a foreign  market,  the  protection  is  lost ; and  it  is  a 
political  absurdity  to  suppose  that  any  article  which  we  export, 
is  protected  by  a prohibitory  duty  at  home. 

The  gentleman  from  Maryland  has  asserted,  with  his  usual 
tone  of  confidence,  that  there  were  no  discriminating  duties  in 
the  British  Colonies. 

We  know  that,  in  1822,  orders  were  issued  to  the  customs 
in  the  Colonial  ports,  to  equalize  the  duties,  and  charges,  and 
fees,  on  American  and  British  vessels  ; which  would  have  been 
unnecessary  if  there  had  been  no  inequality.  Their  ports  had 
been  opened  by  proclamation,  when  their  necessities  required 
it ; and  it  is  probable  that  discriminations  existed  in  favor  of 
their  own  vessels.  The  Collector  at  Jamaica  speaks  of  this 
order  “as  a new  era  in  their  commerce;”  and  says  uit  re- 
mains to  see  how  it  w ill  work.”  This  order  was  communi- 
cated to  us  late  in  that  year. 


The  law  of  1815  gave  the  President  power  to  remove  the 
duty  on  foreign  vessels,  whenever  satisfied  that  no  other 
or  higher  duties  or  charges  were  made  on  American  vessels  in 
their  ports  than  on  their  own.  The  report  stated  that  no  sa- 
tisfactory proof  was  furnished.  It  is  now  answered  that  there 
were  no  such  duties  to  abolish.  Then  it  was  more  easy  to  fur- 
nish the  proof  ; hut  they  refused  to  furnish  it,  or  the  pledge  of 
the  Government  to  the  fact. 

But  he  has  attempted  to  fix  upon  the  Cabinet  a miserable  so- 
phism. He  has  misquoted  the  law  of  1815,  and  then  founded 
his  argument  upon  his  own  error.  He  says  the  law  of  1815 
authorized  the  President  to  remove  the  discriminating  duty 
from  those  nations  who  should  repeal  theirs  ; and  then  he  in- 
volves them  in  the  absurdity  of  deciding  that,  as  the  Colonies 
had  no  such  duties  to  repeal,  they  did  not  come  within  the  letter 
of  the  law.  The  answer  is,  that  this  is  a misreading  of  the 
law. 

By  the  law  of  1815,  “the  repeal  of  the  discriminating  du- 
ties is  to  take  effect  in  favor  of  any  foreign  nation,  w henever 
the  President  of  the  United  States  shall  he  satisfied  that  the 
discriminating  or  countervailing  duties  of  such  foreign  nations, 
so  far  as  they  operate  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  United  States, 
have  been  abolished No  evidence  was  furnished  before 
the  session  of  the  succeeding  Congress,  w hen  his  pow  er  ceased. 
If  no  duties  of  that  kind  existed,  the  fact  w as  not  know  n here, 
and  the  proof  was  more  easily  furnished  : but,  until  it  was 
furnished,  the  President  had  no  power  to  remove  ours. 

I have  adverted  to  this  merely  to  show  the  importance  of 
accuracy  in  facts  in  all  public  discussions  ; and  the  fallacy  as 
well  as  the  futility  of  all  reasoning,  however  logical,  founded 
on  erroneous  premises ; and  it  evinces  the  high  obligation  of 
those  who  impute  error,  absurdity,  or  ignorance,  to  others,  to  be 
correct  themselves  in  their  facts,  and  clear  in  their  inferences. 

The  report  of  the  last  session  stated  that  an  American  vessel, 
arriving  at  a bad  market,  cannot  proceed  to  another  island 
w ithout  paying  double  duties,  and  that  onerous  and  heavy  du- 
ties and  Colonial  fees  are  exacted  : to  which  the  gentleman 
from  Maryland  then  replied,  “ it  is  true,  sir,  that  onerous  and 
heavy  duties  and  colonial  fees  had  been  exacted  in  the  Colo- 
nies, and  operated  as  stated  in  the  report.”  The  fact  is  now  un- 
important, and  I will  not  waste  time  in  pursuing  it. 

Mr.  Adams  says  to  Mr.  Canning,  “that  other  charges  and 
even  duties,  discriminating  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  United 
States,  have  continued  to  be  levied  in  several  of  the  enume- 
rated ports,  until  a late  period.” 

An  accidental  error  in  the  report,  which  stales  that  the  ex- 


port  duty  of  4 per  rent,  was  levied  by  the  act  which  imposed 
the  duty  on  importation,  has  been  seized  on,  as  if  the  act  in 
which  the  duty  was  imposed,  was  the  point  in  dispute.  The 
existence  of  the  duty,  no  matter  when  lev  ied,  was  the  material 
part  of  the  fact  ; and  it  is  now  said  that  these  export  duties 
and  charges  are  equally  levied  on  British  as  on  American  ves- 
sels. They  are,  notwithstanding,  onerous  on  commerce.  Trade 
can  only  be  profitably  carried  on  with  a freight  both  ways ; 
but,  if  the  export  duty,  and  other  charges,  prevent  the  British 
sugars  from  arriving  in  our  ports  on  equal  terms  with  other 
sugars,  it  follows,  that  they  cannot  be  brought  here  ; or,  if 
brought,  with  a loss  equal  to  those  charges.  And  this  is  the 
real  state  of  the  case.  All  the  return  cargoes  are  losing  voy- 
ages ; and  therefore  it  is,  that,  of  five  millions  of  dollars  of  su- 
gars which  we  import,  only  § 158,000  are  British  sugars; 
and  nearly  one-hali*  of  the  value  of  our  exports  (deducting- 
ashes,  and  other  articles  that  go  to  Europe)  is  sent  back  in 
gold  and  silver,  and  in  both  ways  the  freight  on  the  return 
voyage  is  lost. 

The  gentleman  from  Maryland  has  also  said,  that,  by  the 
existing  regulations,  our  productions  are  admitted  into  Canada 
free  of  duty,  and  that  they  pay  only  one  shilling  a barrel 
on  flour,  when  imported  into  the  West  Indies.  I apprehend 
he  is  entirely  mistaken  so  far  as  the  law  operates.  Flour, 
smuggled  into  Canada,  and  shipped  as  British  flour,  will  no 
doubt  escape  the  duty,  but  American  flour  pays  the  duty  in 
Canada.  It  is  true  it  may  be  deposited  at  the  warehouse  at 
Quebec,  but  all  articles  pay  the  duty  when  delivered  from  the 
warehouse  ; and  these  being  imported  into  the  British  Islands, 
pay  only  one  shilling  duty  on  importations  there  from  a ware- 
house. This  is  made  manifest  by  a memorial  from  the  St. 
Lawrence  now  on  the  table;  in  which,  on  the  1st  of  January 
last,  they  complain  that  the  duties  are  prohibitory  and  ruinous 
to  their  trade.  Masts,  timber,  and  ashes,  are  admitted  to  go 
to  the  United  Kingdom,  and  beef  and  pork  to  Newfoundland, 
as  if  from  Canada.  It  would  be  a very  wise  policy  in  Great 
Britain  to  draw  ail  the  trade  of  the  St.  Lawrence  and  the 
lakes  into  the  sphere  of  her  commerce.  In  the  first  place,  it 
would  supply  her  Colonies  ; it  would  carry  the  trade  through 
her  towns  ; give  the  transportation  to  her  shipping  : and  open 
an  extensive  commerce  for  the  supply  of  the  whole  of  the  coun- 
try depending  on  the  St.  Lawrence  and  the  lakes.  She  has, 
however,  hitherto  refused  to  treat  on  the  right  of  navigating 
that  river  from  the  lakes  to  the  ocean,  for  reasons  peculiar,  hut 
no  doubt  satisfactory  to  herself. 

The  gentleman  from  Maryland  has  ridiculed  the  idea  of  our 
consoling  ourselves  w ith  a new  trade,  that  w ill  compensate  for 


21 


Ihe  loss  of  the  British  Colonial  trade.  Has  notan  extensive  and 
lucrative  trade  opened  with  all  the  South  American  States,  and 
is  it  not  constantly  and  rapidly  increasing  ? Will  not  the  ves- 
sels, thrown  out  of  the  trade  with  the  Colonies,  engage  in  new 
enterprises  ? Will  they  not  every  where  come  in  competition 
with  British  ships  ? Does  he  imagine  that  American  genius 
and  enterprise  are  exhausted  ? that  ail  the  sources  of  trade  and 
all  the  avenues  of  commerce  are  explored  ? Does  he  believe 
that  the  nation  which  can  navigate  with  the  least  expense, 
that  can  overcome  all  competition,  has  already  arrived  at  its 
ultimatum  ? that  our  tonnage  will  not  increase,  and  our  com- 
merce expand?  Does  he  not  know  that  any  obstruction  of  this 
intercourse,  will  divert  this  trade  into  a new  direction,  and  that 
not  the  least  sensible  effect  will  he  produced  in  our  markets, 
or  in  the  tonnage  employed  ? There  is  a great  probability 
that  both  will  be  increased.  Provisions  rose,  in  Barbadoes, 
one  hundred  per  cent.,  on  the  day  the  interdict  took  effect,  in 
certain  anticipation  that  our  interdict  would  follow,  as  a matter 
of  course.  We  may  confidently  rely  upon  the  sagacity  and 
enterprise  of  our  people,  to  push  their  fortunes  wherever  a sail 
is  seen,  or  a dollar  is  made  : and  if  we  have  the  wisdom  and 
the  firmness  to  close  our  ports  upon  British  vessels,  so  far  as 
to  prevent  them  from  carryingous*  productions  to  their  colonies, 
they  will  he  carried  in  our  vessels  with  increased  profit,  and 
will  be  consumed  in  the  Colonies  at  very  high  advances,  and 
with  ruinous  effect  upon  their  trade,  as  well  as  injury  to  their 
shipping. 

The  gentleman  has  animadverted  upon  the  bill,  and,  in  speak- 
ing of  its  limitation  to  vessels  by  sea.  he  says  “ it  creates  a terror 
in  his  mind  he  dare  not  express/’  He  has  greatly  exaggerated 
the  danger,  as  well  as  misconceived  the  operation  of  the  hill, 
and  the  nature  of  the  trade.  Mr.  J.  remarked  that  he  had,  on 
several  occasions,  said,  that  there  was  great  diversity  of  opi- 
nion with  regard  to  the  extent  of  the  interdict  ; that  he  had 
reported  the  bill  in  this  form,  under  the  impression  that  it  cor- 
responded with  the  bill  of  the  House  of  Representatives  ; that 
he  had  since  heard  that  they  had  stricken  it  out,  but  of  which 
they  had  not  notified  him  ; that  he  considered  that  question  as 
open  to  amendment.  He  had  distinctly  stated  to  the  House, 
that  he  was  in  favor  of  an  entire  interdict,  embracing  all  Ca- 
nada, for  the  same  reason  that  he  was  in  favor  of  the  interdict. 
He  desired  to  make  it  effectual,  by  cutting  off  any  indirect  sup- 
ply of  the  Colonies,  by  which  they  could  evade  our  laws  and 
sustain  their  new  policy.  He  was  moreover  satislied,  that,  by 
closing  all  communication,  our  trade  would  not  be  materially 
affected.  It  would  take  a new  and  circuitous  course,  in  our 
vessels,  to  British  Colonies. 


25 


There  is,  however,  nothing  in  this  bill  to  excite  any  terror 
in  the  mind.  It  is  nothing  more  than  the  laws  of  1818  and 
1820,  which  were  two  years  in  operation  without  any  serious 
consequences.  The  laws  were  enforced  and  obeyed.  They 
were  severely  felt  in  the  Colonies,  and  led  to  the  act  of  1822, 
which  opened  the  ports.  It  is  clear  that  the  provisions  of  the 
bill  will  prevent  any  communication  from  any  of  the  New  Eng- 
land States  with  New  Brunswick  and  Nova  Scotia.  Their  ports 
cannot  be  approached  but  by  water,  and  in  violation  of  this  law  ; 
and  it  is  much  easier  to  prevent  the  shipment  of  bulky  articles  like 
flour  and  lumber,  than  to  protect  the  revenue  now  from 
violations  by  smuggling.  The  temptation  to  introduce  goods 
now,  to  avoid  the  duties,  is  one  hundred-fold  greater  than  to 
transport  lumber  and  flour  to  the  ports  of  St.  John’s  or  Hali- 
fax. It  is  well  known  that  the  New  England  States  have  no 
flour  for  exportation,  and  that,  if  any  flour  was  sent  in  this  illi- 
cit and  exposed  route,  it  would  be  the  flour  of  the  Middle 
States,  which  our  vessels  would  carry  there ; which  is  better 
than  the  present  state  of  things,  by  which  we  are  forbidden  to 
carry  our  productions,  and  the  British  vessels  allowed  to  go 
with  them  direct  to  the  Colonies. 

As  to  Canada,  it  will  be  seen  that  she  will  profit  very  little 
by  the  flour  trade.  The  ports  will  be  closed  with  ice  by  No- 
vember, and  will  not  be  again  open  until  May ; her  flour  could 
not  arrive  before  June  in  the  Colonial  markets,  where  it  could 
not  compete  with  the  fresh  flour  daily  arriving  by  other  routes, 
with  less  charges  of  freight.  But,  by  leaving  Canada  open  for 
the  present  year,  no  injury  could  result,  and  next  session  will 
be  time  to  close  that,  if  it  becomes  necessary.  It  is  further  to 
be  observed,  that  the  principal  trade  with  Canada  is  in  ashes, 
masts,  spars,  &c.  which  are  not  intended  for  the  Colonial  trade, 
but  which  go  direct  to  England,  and  which  it  could  not  be  our 
policy  to  prevent,  and  which,  until  the  Oswego  Canal  is  finish- 
ed, cannot  find  an  outlet  in  any  other  way.  Although  I prefer 
an  absolute  and  entire  interdict  of  all  commerce  co-extensive 
with  the  object,  yet,  I confess,  that  I see  no  danger  in  the  bill, 
arid  am  utterly  at  a loss  to  imagine  the  cause  of  the  terror 
which  he  cannot  express. 

In  the  course  of  another  year,  this  entire  interdict  will  effect 
an  important  revolution  in  the  commerce  of  the  Lake  country, 
and  will  be  attended  with  effects  highly  favorable  to  the  com- 
merce and  navigation  of  this  country. 

As  soon  as  the  prohibition  takes  effect,  and  the  Canal  from 
Oswego  to  the  New  York  Canal  opens  the  communication  from 
Lake  Ontario  to  the  Hudson,  all  the  trade  of  that  country  will 
take  the  direction  of  New  York;  we  shall  bring  all  our  pro- 
ductions within  the  sphere  of  our  commerce,  and  concentrate  it 
4 


26 


in  the  great  Northern  emporium.  Even  when  the  interdict  is' 
removed,  we  shall  find  canals  more  safe  than  the  dangerous 
rapids  of  the  St.  Lawrence  ; the  evpense  less  ; the  route  to 
Europe  and  the  West  Indies  shorter;  a more  steady  and  am- 
pie  market;  and  a cheaper  supply  for  the  consumption  of  the 
interior.  We  have  been  heretofore  induced  to  give  great  im- 
portance to  the  right  to  navigate  that  river;  hut,  if  the  hopes 
now  created  by  the  canals  in  operation  are  realized,  it  will 
equally  comport  with  the  interests  of  individuals,  and  the  protec- 
tion of  our  own  institutions,  by  drawing  our  productions  into 
our  own  channels,  and  holding  at  command  our  own  resources. 

The  gentleman  has  said,  that  the  point  so  long  contended 
for,  had  been  given  up. 

Mr.  J.  said,  the  Secretary  of  State  had,  in  1825,  sought  in- 
formation from  the  highest  sources ; but,  before  any  communi- 
cation was  made  with  regard  to  the  British  proposition  of  1824, 
the  acts  of  Parliament  arrived  ; so  that,  on  that  subject,  what- 
ever opinions  were  entertained  here  with  regard  to  those  pro- 
posals, no  answer  was  given,  and,  consequently,  no  point  was 
given  up. 

But  the  British  Government  superseded  the  necessity  of  de- 
ciding that  question  by  their  acts  of  1825,  by  which  they  open- 
ed the  Colonial  ports,  and  permitted  American  vessels  to  enter 
on  the  same  terms  as  her  ow  n,  and  to  carry  her  productions  to 
any  foreign  countr'y  whatever.  The  Government  of  the  United 
States  determined  to  accept  the  terms.  It  was  all  they  could 
expect  or  wish.  They  saw  no  further  difficulty  in  relation  to 
this  subject.  They  thought  this  concession  on  the  part  of  Great 
Britain,  w as  made  in  the  spirit  of  those  liberal  ideas  she  had 
lately  professed.  It  w as  every  where  thought  that  the  extent 
of  this  concession  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  w as  equivalent  to 
the  circuitous  voyage  and  the  removal  of  the  discriminating 
duties.  There  was  then,  and  still  are,  men,  who  believe  the 
right  to  make  the  triple  voyage  is  a dangerous  experiment  to 
the  shipping  interest;  but  the  better  opinion  seems  to  be,  that 
we  may  engage  in  a fair  competition  with  her,  and  that  we 
ought  not  to  hesitate  to  meet  her  on  fair  and  liberal  terms. 
This  became  the  settled  opinion  of  the  Administration,  of  which 
the  gentleman  was  fully  informed  in  the  most  unreserved  com- 
munications with  them. 

The  gentleman  has  gone  out  of  his  way  to  pass  a general  and 
indiscriminate  censure  upon  the  several  Administrations  of  the 
country,  neither  warranted  by  the  facts  nor  illustrative  of  his 
argument.  He  says  “ we  have  lost  in  all  our  treaties  with  Great 
Britain.”  He  hasentercd  into  detail,  and  ascribes  it  openly  “ to 
the  want  of  information.”  It  happens,  however,  that  these  trea 
ties  have  been  negotiated  by  a succession  of  the  ablest  men — 


27 


the  elder  Mr.  Adams,  Mr.  Jay,  Mr.  Monroe,  the  President, 
Mr.  Clay,  Mr.  Gallatin,  and  others.  We  have  also  had  at 
that  Court  Mr.  Pinckney,  a profound  scholar,  an  able  jurist, 
an  orator,  and  a statesman  ; and  yet  the  want  of  information 
is  publicly  ascribed  in  this  place,  as  the  apology  for  the  treaties, 
by  which  it  is  alleged  we  have  lost  on  every  occasion  with 
Great  Britain. 

Perhaps  no  country  has  furnished  such  an  illustrious  example 
of  great  ability  in  the  diplomatic  line.  We  have  in  that  list 
names  the  most  distinguished  in  the  age  in  which  we  live,  and 
almost  all  who  have  added  to  the  glory  of  the  country.  We 
have  Franklin,  Adams,  Jefferson,  Ellsworth,  Jay,  Marshall, 
Monroe,  King,  Pinckney,  Adams,  Clay,  Crawford,  Gallatin, 
and  many  others  of  great  distinction.  Four  of  them  have  at- 
tained the  highest  honors  of  their  country;  three  have  stood  at 
the  head  of  the  Federal  Judiciary;  and  all  of  them,  except  one, 
in  the  highest  ranks  of  that  profession,  to  which  the  gentleman 
found  it  necessary  to  make  particular  allusion. 

This  severe  reflection,  altogether  undeserved  ami  unneces- 
sary. upon  the  result  of  our  diplomatic  intercourse  with  Great 
Britain,  is  an  appropriate  counterpart  to  the  high  drawn  pane- 
gyric pronounced  last  Winter  upon  the  British  cabinet. 

The  treaty  of  1794  was  negotiated  by  Mr.  Jay,  a patriot  and 
a statesman.  It  was  approved  by  the  Senate,  and  ratified  by 
President  Washington.  Much  opposition  was  created,  at  the 
time,  to  the  terms  of  the  treaty,  in  consequence  of  our  political 
relations  and  feelings  towards  the  two  great  belligerents  ; but 
a more  favorable  opinion  has  since  been  pronounced. 

The  right  of  trading  with  the  Colonies  in  the  West  Indies 
was  conceded,  in  vessels  of  70  tons,  and  with  a promise  that, 
at  the  end  of  the  war,  they  would  extend  the  privilege.  This 
proves  that  the  right  to  trade  with  the  Colonies  was  a subject 
of  treaty  stipulation,  and  of  negotiation,  as  early  as  1794. 
This,  the  gentleman  says,  was  an  important  concession,  and 
ought  to  have  been  accepted.  But  there  were  men  then,  who 
thought  these  terms  unequal,  and  rejected  the  12th  article.  It 
was  not  then  considered  a boon,  granted  without  equivalent ; 
but  as  a question,  how  far  the  limited  trade  to  the  Islands  was 
a just  equivalent  for  the  free  admission  into  our  ports. 

By  the  same  treaty,  our  vessels  had  admission  into  all  the 
East  India  ports,  but  paid  a discriminating  duty.  By  the 
Convention  of  1815,  we  were  admitted  into  four  of  the  largest 
ports,  which  were  quite  sufficient  for  our  commeree,  and  on  the 
same  terms,  and  paying  the  same  duties  and  charges  as  British 
vessels.  This  treaty  was  every  where  acceptable  ; and  there 
is  no  doubt  that  the  present  trade,  freed  from  discriminating 
duties,  is  more  beneficial  than  a trade  with  all  the  East  India 


28 


ports,  paying  that  duty.  I see  nothing  in  all  this,  to  justify 
the  broad  assertions,  of  want  of  information , and  of  losing  in 
all  our  treaties  with  Great  Britain;  and  there  is  a striking  in- 
consistency in  employing  this  argument  now,  in  order  to  in- 
duce us  to  yield  still  more  to  the  claims  of  Great  Britain. 

But,  sir,  said  Mr.  J.  I remember  to  have  heard  it  said,  at 
the  time,  that  we  were  peculiarly  happy  in  the  selection  of  the 
Ministers  at  Ghent.  It  was  a matter  of  some  pride  to  our 
country,  but  of  which  it  is  invidious  now  to  speak.  But  it  was 
a subject  of  remark  in  the  British  Parliament.  The  Marquis 
of  Wellesley  said,  “that,  in  his  opinion,  the  American  Com- 
missioners had  shown  the  most  astonishing  superiority  over 
the  British,  during  the  whole  of  the  correspondence.” 

I have  now  traced  the  two  Governments  through  all  the 
transactions  connected  with  this  subject.  I can  find  nothing  to 
diminish  my  confidence  in  the  justice  and  liberality  of  my  own 
Government;  and  I do  not  envy  the  gentleman  the  ungracious 
task  he  has  undertaken  of  putting  his  own  country  in  the  wrong — 
a task  that  must  he  painful  to  his  pride  and  patriotism,  in  pro- 
portion as  he  may  esteem  himself  successful  in  the  effort. 

It  is  said  that  an  interdict  contains  a menace,  and  that  Great 
Britain  will  not  act  under  such  a measure  of  coercion.  The 
interdiction  is  the  natural  state  of  things,  and  the  necessary 
consequence  of  her  own  acts.  We  have  been  perpetually  ex- 
cluded from  the  colonies  by  the  ordinary  laws  of  navigation, 
which  was  by  no  means  offensive  to  us.  When  she  has  opened 
these  ports,  it  has  been  known  to  be  an  exception  to  a system 
of  exclusion.  It  has  been  equally  well  settled,  that  our  ports 
are  open,  and  our  trade  free,  unless  aw  exception  is  adopted, 
to  operate  on  those  who  deny  us  the  same  privileges.  The 
principle  by  which  we  have  been  governed  is,  “ that,  where 
any  nation  may  refuse  to  the  vessels  of  the  United  States  a 
carriage  of  the  produce  or  manufacture  thereof,  while  such 
produce  or  manufactures  are  admitted  by  it  in  its  own  vessels, 
it  would  be  just  to  make  the  restrictions  reciprocal.” 

Great  Britain  has,  while  repealing  her  navigation  laws,  and 
opening  the  Colonial  ports  to  the  rest  of  the  world,  reverted  to 
the  exclusion  of  our  vessels.  She  knew  that,  by  a standing  la  w 
of  this  country,  the  President  had  power,  and  it  was  made  his 
duty,  to  close  our  ports  whenever  they  closed  theirs.  It  w as  the 
natural  and  necessary  effect  of  this  measure.  If  it  is  viewed 
as  a menace,  it  has  existed  since  1823,  and  would  require  an 
act  of  legislation  to  prevent  its  operation.  But,  with  a desire 
to  prevent  any  collision,  and  to  avoid  offensive  retaliation,  we 
propose  to  suspend  the  operation  of  this  law,  and  to  postpone 
the  execution  of  the  interdict,  until  the  30tli  of  September,  and 
longer,  if  you  will.  Great  Britain  will  see  in  this,  our  mode- 


29 


ration;  we  offer  her  the  most  liberal  terms;  all  that  she  has 
ever  demanded.  The  causes  of  any  delay  will  be  explained  ; 
full  time  is  afforded  to  determine  on  her  course,  but  with  a 
perfect  know  ledge  that  the  interdict  is  only  suspended. 

We  ail  agree  that  the  terms  ar  e liberal  ; that  we  have  noth- 
ing more  to  tender  to  her  ; that  we  will  not  permit  any  nation 
to  trade  to  our  ports  from  any  ports  closed  against  us;  and 
that,  if  she  refuses,  the  interdict  must  follow.  It  is  a question 
of  time  ; my  own  opinion  was,  and  it  is  unchanged,  that  the  in- 
terdiction should  have  followed  instantly  upon  theirs  ; their  Co- 
lonies would  have  instantly  felt  its  effect ; whileour  trade  would 
have  suffered  little  from  the  derangement.  Our  vessels  would 
have  merely  changed  the  direction  of  their  voyage. 

By  the  amendment,  our  ports  are  left  open  during  the  w hole 
of  this  year  to  British  vessels;  they  will  consequently  supply 
their  Colonies,  and  deprive  our  vessels  of  that  trade,  as  well 
as  the  trade  which  would  have  naturally  risen  up  on  the  sup- 
pression of  the  direct  trade*  Our  vessels  w ill,  therefore,  be 
thrown  out  of  employment  or  compelled  to  find  some  new  ob- 
ject of  pursuit  On  the  first  of  January,  their  Colonies  will  he 
supplied  for  six  months;  at  the  expiration  of  which  period, 
they  will  receive  the  supplies  of  Canada  ; and  two  years  will 
elapse  before  they  will,  in  any  way,  feel  the  effect  of  the  inter- 
dict: in  the  mean  time,  our  vessels,  engaged  in  this  trade,  will 
have  been  thrown  out  of  service,  or  entered  on  other  pursuits, 
and  considerable  time  will  be  required  to  enter  again  into  the 
competition  with  those  regularly  established  in  it.  In  fine, 
the  postponement  for  one  year,  is  nearly  equivalent  to  the 
entire  loss,  and  is  equally  an  abandonment  of  our  principles 
and  our  interest. 

The  interdict  merely  proposes  to  do,  prospectively,  what 
Great  Britain  has  already  done:  it  proposes  to  postpone  the 
operation  of  a positive  law  for  six  months,  from  motives  of  re* 
spent  to  her.  This  is  not  enough.  We  must  humiliate  the 
country,  confess  our  er  rors,  withdraw  our  interdict,  and  make 
our  submission. 

Great  Britain  has  placed  herself  where  she  was  in  1818 — 
claiming  to  carry  on  all  the  trade  from  this  country  to  her 
colonies.  We  stand  with  our  ports  open,  as  by  the  law  of 
1823  ; and  we  propose  to  do  now  what  we  did  under  like  cir- 
cumstances in  1818  and  1820.  The  proposition  of  the  amend- 
ment is  to  refuse  to  take  the  same  ground,  and  to  act  upon 
the  same  principles.  It  is  a retrograde  movement — a sacri- 
fice of  principle  to  temporary  expedients,  and  is  mar  ked  by  a 
want  of  consistency  and  firmness. 

Our  ports  were  left  open  from  1815  to  1818.  It  produced 
no  relaxation  of  her  stern  policy.  We  were  compelled  then 


to  resort  to  defensive  measures ; and  what  was  the  result  of 
that  experiment  ? It  produced  the  deepest  distress,  and 
threatened  the  ruin  of  the  Colonies.  Memorials  were,  in 
1822,  addressed  to  Parliament,  representing  in  the  strongest 
terms  tlie  condition  to  which  they  were  reduced.  They  at- 
tributed their  distress  chiefly  to  the  interruption  of  their  com- 
merce with  the  United  States,  the  loss  of  an  extensive  market 
for  exchange,  and  the  advanced  price  of  provisions.  They 
say  the  sugar  colonies  are  dependent  on  the  United  States  for 
supplies  of  dry  provisions,  staves,  and  lumber. 

The  Assembly  of  Jamaica  said,  “our  supplies  from  the 
United  States  of  lumber  arid  provisons,  which  are  essentially 
serviceable  to  aid  the  natural  defects  or  the  failures  of  our 
climate  and  soil,  are  straightened  by  the  total  interruption  of 
that  trade.  The  regulated  and  limited  commerce  which  the 
laws  of  trade  and  navigation  permitted  in  British  ships,  is 
denied  to  us  by  the  retaliatory  system  of  the  United  States. 
Provisions,  the  growth  of  the  United  States,  travel  to  us, 
when  introduced,  by  a double  voyage,  and  at  an  expense  unne- 
cessarily enhanced  by  this  policy.  The  subjects  of  your  Ma- 
jesty are  stinted  in  their  supplies,  and  are  taxed,  while  the 
benefit  is  conferred  on  the  ships  of  Spain  and  Ameiica.  and  on 
Spanish  ports.  A new  system  of  intercourse,  upon  the  basis 
of  mutual  benefit,  permitting  the  importation  in  American 
bottoms  of  the  products  of  the  United  States,  and  the  export 
of  our  staple  commodities  in  return,  would  afford  an  important 
relief  to  the  distresses  of  your  Majesty’s  Colonies,  and  open  to 
British  ships  a trade  from  which  they  are  now  excluded 

Such  would  now  be  the  condition  of  those  Islands.  It  is 
painful  to  contemplate  it ; but  it  is  a necessary  measure  of  self- 
defence  and  self  respect.  Let  us  not  flatter  ourselves  witli 
the  impotent  attempt  to  soothe  Great  Britain  into  compliance. 
She  must  feel  the  pressure,  and  yield  to  the  necessity. 

But  is  there  nothing  in  this  interdict,  which  peculiarly  calls 
for  retaliation  ? It  is  marked  by  a total  want  of  delicacy  to- 
wards our  Minister,  and  of  respect  to  the  country  ,•  and  is  dis- 
tinguished by  peculiar  circumstances  of  aggravation.  Great 
Britain  knew,  that,  after  the  laws  of  1825  were  received  here, 
there  remained  no  longer  any  difficulty  between  us,  and  that 
those  laws  would  form  a basis  of  a treaty  equally  acceptable 
to  both  countries.  They  might  have  seen  that  in  the  Presi- 
dent’s message,  which  was  clear  and  explicit ; they  would  have 
seen  that  in  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  Commerce,  and  in 
the  speech  of  the  gentleman  from  Maryland.  There  was  no  dif- 
ference of  opinion  here  with  regar  d to  the  terms  of  the  inter- 
course. From  the  moment  it  was  known  that  the  Colonial 
ports  were  to  be  opened,  and  that  we  w ere  permitted  to  carry 
their  productions  to  any  foreign  place,  and  to  pay  only  the 


31 


same  charges  as  British  vessels,  there  was  but  one  opinion 
here:  that  we  ought  to  give  her  the  circuitous  voyage,  and 
admit  her*  vessels  on  the  same  terms  as  our  own.  The  only 
difference  was,  as  to  the  mode.  The  Government  thought  the  ob- 
ject could  be  better  attained  and  established  on  a more  durable 
basis  by  treaty,  than  by  mere  acts  of  legislation.  The  mode 
must  have  been  indifferent  to  Great  Britain.  She  knew  that 
Mr.  King  was  unable  to  conduct  the  negotiation;  that  Mr. Gal- 
latin had  been  appointed  with  the  least  delay  ; that  she  had  her- 
self invited  us.  in  March,  1826,  to  send  an  additional  Minister; 
that  Mr.  Gallatin  would  be  fully  instructed,  and  would  arrive 
in  lune,  before  the  date  of  the  Order  in  Council.  They  had 
seen  the  delay  was  accidental,  and  unavoidable.  They  had 
not  expressed  any  dissatisfaction  with  the  state  of  the  trade, 
or  any  impatience  at  the  delay.  They  made  no  communica- 
tion to  this  Government,  either  with  regard  to  the  laws,  or  the 
anticipated  interdict  ; and  two  days  after  the  arrival  of  our 
Minister,  fully  instructed  to  treat,  upon  terms  perfectly  libe- 
ral and  equal,  this  interdict  is  thrown  in  his  face,  without  ex- 
planation or  apology.  There  is  in  this  transaction  an  utter 
want  of  respect  to  the  country,  and  a deviation  from  custom- 
ary usage  and  courtesy,  and  without  example  in  the  inter- 
course of  friendly  nations.  I cannot  speak  of  the  tone  and 
bearing  of  the  subsequent  communications,  without  indulging 
feelings  which  would  betray  me  into  expressions  which  deli- 
cacy forbids  me  to  utter  here.  In  looking  back  upon  tins 
transaction,  I can  see  nothing  *o  account  for  this  sudden  and 
unexpected  change  in  her  policy,  or  apologize  for  the  abrupt- 
ness with  which  she  has  closed  the  negotiation,  and,  conse- 
quently, nothing  to  induce  us  to  withhold  the  interdict. 

It  is  said  the  motive  of  her  conduct  lies  deeper— that  she  has 
other  and  higher  aims.  Whatever  may  be  her  real  or  avowed 
object,  our  principles  demand  of  us  to  do  to  others  as  they  do 
to  us. 

Mr.  Johxston  said  he  had  passed  rapidly  over  the  several 
topics  which  have  been  drawn  into  this  debate.  These  details 
and  this  retrospect  have  been  necessary  ; they  may  be  useful ; 
but  no  talent  can  render  them  interesting. 

A short  recapitulation  will  present  the  subject  in  a narrow 
point  of  view. 

For  seven  years  from  the  treaty  of  peace,  Great  Britain 
practised  upon  a principle  untenable  and  inadmissible,  to 
which  our  opposition  was  a necessary  and  proper  measure  of 
self-defence. 

In  1822,  both  opened  their  ports,  upon  terms  deemed  reci- 
procal, although  under  restrictions  and  discriminations.  They 
were  deemed  reciprocal  because  it  was  not  known  here  that 
their  duties  and  charges  were  equalized.  And  no  proof  w as  offer- 


32 


ed  to  that  effect,  until  after  the  meeting  of  the  succeeding  Con- 
gress, when  the  power  of  the  President  over  this  subject  ceased, 
in  March,  1325,  we  passed  our  law  opening  a direct  trade, 
exactly  corresponding  with  a similar  limitation  in  their  law, 
and,  therefore,  perfectly  equal  and  reciprocal.  We  continued 
the  discriminating  duty  on  their  vessels,  in  consequence  of  the 
excessive  duties  on  our  productions.  But,  on  the  receipt  of 
our  law,  (in  June,)  they  imposed  a discriminating  duty  on  our 
vessels,  equal  to.  and  intended  to  countervail,  ours.  The  trade 
was  then  placed  on  an  equal  footing ; but  it  is  dear  that  the 
discriminating  duty  did  not  operate  injuriously  to  G.  Britain. 

The  American  vessels,  which  carried  four-fifths  of  all  the 
productions  of  the  West  Indies,  paid  the  duty  there,  and,  con- 
sequently, the  removal  of  the  duty  would  have  placed  them  in 
a better  situation,  and  would  not  have  been  more  favorable  to 
the  British  navigation. 

As  to  the  vessels  arriving  in  our  ports  from  the  Colonies,  it 
has  been  shown,  that  even  our  vessels  cannot  profitably  engage 
in  it  ; all  the  return  voyages,  owing  to  the  condition  of  the  Isl- 
ands and  their  staples,  are  attended  with  certain  loss,  and  one 
half  return  with  specie  and  in  ballast.  So  that,  in  fact,  the  dis- 
criminating duty  had  no  effect. 

In  1825,  Great  Britain  removed  her  discriminating  duty, 
and  gave  a wider  range  to  our  commerce,  by  permitting  us 
to  go  from  the  Colonies  to  any  foreign  place,  by  which  she  en- 
titled herself  to  the  corresponding  right  in  our  ports  and  to 
the  removal  of  our  discriminating  duties;  and  a treaty  would 
doubtless  have  been  formed  on  this  principle,  if  Great  Britain 
had  not  herself  interrupted  the  trade  by  her  interdict,  and 
the  negotiations  by  her  peremptory  decision  ; which  leaves 
us  no  alternative,  but  submission  or  interdiction  ; and  I have 
shown,  that  the  latter  is  demanded  by  our  interest,  our  princi- 
ples, and  our  honor. 

It  is  hoped  that  juster  views,  and  more  amicable  sentiments 
will  lead  to  a speedy  adjustment  of  the  commercial  rights  and 
interests  of  both  Nations,  on  terms  equally  satisfactory  and 
beneficial. 

There  are  causes  now  operating,  and  elements  now  com- 
bining in  the  political  world,  which  will  produce  new  princi- 
ples of  action  and  organization,  and  lead  to  events  of  greatest 
magnitude,  and  of  deepest  import  to  Europe  and  America  ; in 
which  it  may  be  peculiarly  interesting  to  Great  Britain  and 
this  Country,  to  have  no  points  of  collision. 

Mr.  J.  concluded  that  the  interdict  is  in  accordance  with  the 
known  principles  and  practice  of  this  Government.  It  imports 
nothing  menacing  or  offensive  certainly,  to  those  who  have  ap- 
plied it  to  us,  and  he  therefore  hoped  the  amendment  would  not 
prevail. 


M ? « mliPib ! IPP? 


ispp% 


igMgftr  w 

i8WgHg;;.:r-;;J 

.•  IhL**  m r?~ 

- 

->  v - i * ".-•;  * ‘ ’ .r..  J • - ,!  " y •,.  ' \ ■•-'  »•  ' /• 


